|
|
Post by tigerfan on Apr 5, 2010 13:08:02 GMT -5
There are 31 new judges with recent agency experience and 25 from outside the agency. It appears of the of the judges with agency experience 15 of the 31 are women - of the judges without recent agency experience 12 of 25 are women. Apparently there were 56 new judges hired.
I cannot swear to this but it is info I received from a pretty reliable souce.
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 6, 2010 8:47:27 GMT -5
Don't forget that individual scores are a variable along with outside experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Apr 6, 2010 10:20:16 GMT -5
From a source inside SSA: "There are now at least 29 new ALJs out of the ranks of SSA attorneys. I understand that 56 offers were accepted out of 57 made. The reporting date for the new ALJs is May 24th, with training starting in Falls Church on June 7th. " Roughly 50% of the new hires are SSA attorneys, which has been a fairly consistent number since 2007. When you toss in SSA practitioners, and the few hires with SSA connections (marriage, etc.) the number grows to the 60% level, more or less. Again, this seems fairly consistent. We will not know the exact amount until discovery in the litigation cases reveals that. Also, for those who have raised it, we also will not likely know the % of SSA attorneys on the register as a whole, unless that figure is released as part of discovery. I'm a not gonna say it............  |
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Apr 6, 2010 13:40:27 GMT -5
Res Ipsa Loquitur
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 6, 2010 14:18:36 GMT -5
What a fine group of fresh, highly qualified adjudicators!
|
|
|
|
Post by tigerfan on Apr 6, 2010 18:54:49 GMT -5
Actually, there were 60 offers and 56 accepted.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Apr 7, 2010 8:20:19 GMT -5
What a fine group of fresh, highly qualified adjudicators! For many, many of them, as long as they stay at SSA and don't try to do a real bench trial with two sets of trial litigators I might agree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by southerner on Apr 7, 2010 9:36:56 GMT -5
I expect Val may respond, but I will take the first opportunity.
ALJ = Administrative Law Judge---please note the last word.
There are various matters to adjudicate, please see statutes, regs, SSR's.
Given that all ALJ's are appointed under the same rigorous (some say tedious) process, and this includes ODAR, HUD, FERC, USCG, and other federal agencies, I would posit that all are qualified to be ALJ's for any agency. The question may be whether some might function better at some agencies rather than all. I would say all COULD function, but some may do better for some agencies rather than others. There are some ALJ's at ODAR that are not fully ready to deal with high-volume adjudication and might be better served at other agencies, but that I leave to the individuals involved as to the scope of their abilities.
I realize for some this may be a matter of semantics, but I do not consider myself a hearing examiner or akin to one. I am not interested in denigrating our positions. But for those who do not like the term of Judge for ODAR, please feel free to attempt to persuade the Congress accordingly through any stautory amendment process and we shall see which position prevails.
One does weary of feeling a need for being defensive in what were thought to be settled matters, but I enjoy a good discussion and feel comfortable in throwing in my two cents from time to time.
|
|
oldschool
Full Member
Newbie FAQ Contributor
Posts: 101 
|
Post by oldschool on Apr 7, 2010 9:47:38 GMT -5
What a fine group of fresh, highly qualified adjudicators hearing officers! Whether they are "highly" qualified and whether an SSA Judge is really an "adjudicator" are terms that are open to debate. ad·ju·di·cate (-jd-kt) v. ad·ju·di·cat·ed, ad·ju·di·cat·ing, ad·ju·di·cates v.tr. 1. To hear and settle (a case) by judicial procedure. 2. To study and settle (a dispute or conflict): The principal adjudicated our quarrel. v.intr. To act as a judge. hearing examiner, hearing officer Noun an official appointed by a government agency to conduct an investigation or administrative hearing so that the agency can exercise its statutory powers. As I am often reminded, SSA judges perform in a non-adversarial hearing, thus their role is more akin to a hearing officer/examiner than an "adjudicator." As PA points out, because the hearings are non-adversarial, many of these folks are probably qualified, even in the absence of any significant litigation experience, to act as a hearing official. Whether they are qualified to serve as ALJs in another federal agency other than SSA is also open to debate, but they got their robe, and they got their title, so they are Judges in any event. I congratulate all the new appointees and wish them well. If you had been selected by SSA on a previous cert rather than your current assignment, how would you have referred to yourself ? Would you have signed your decisions as "Hearing Officer Patriotsfan?" |
|
|
|
Post by equitablerlf on Apr 7, 2010 10:49:18 GMT -5
I knew PF and PA were arrogant and self-worshipping. Is it any wonder SSA passed them over? They belittle their colleagues and somehow think they are too good to preside over SSA hearings with emotionally and physically vulnerable pro se claimants? I am glad they are not part of SSA. I think the selection process does work and this is proof.
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 7, 2010 13:42:46 GMT -5
I expect Val may respond, but I will take the first opportunity. ALJ = Administrative Law Judge---please note the last word. There are various matters to adjudicate, please see statutes, regs, SSR's. Given that all ALJ's are appointed under the same rigorous (some say tedious) process, and this includes ODAR, HUD, FERC, USCG, and other federal agencies, I would posit that all are qualified to be ALJ's for any agency. The question may be whether some might function better at some agencies rather than all. I would say all COULD function, but some may do better for some agencies rather than others. There are some ALJ's at ODAR that are not fully ready to deal with high-volume adjudication and might be better served at other agencies, but that I leave to the individuals involved as to the scope of their abilities. I realize for some this may be a matter of semantics, but I do not consider myself a hearing examiner or akin to one. I am not interested in denigrating our positions. But for those who do not like the term of Judge for ODAR, please feel free to attempt to persuade the Congress accordingly through any stautory amendment process and we shall see which position prevails. One does weary of feeling a need for being defensive in what were thought to be settled matters, but I enjoy a good discussion and feel comfortable in throwing in my two cents from time to time. No need to respond. I think PF did a nice job of wrapping up my case for me as he always does. Back when I was clerking, I remember a partner explaining to me that the key to taking down a large corporation was finding that one officer or manager that, by just being himself, would give you the kind of depositon that would scare the bejesus out of the defense counsel. No matter how much the defense could try and prepare this guy for trial, a fair and impartial jury would only perceive him one disasterous way. Settlement anyone? Just a little litigation tip I picked up once. And by the way PF, Mr. Poochkins was looking at the entertaining photo you provided and wondered how you knew that I have my Mother's thighs? |
|
|
|
Post by wilddog on Apr 7, 2010 14:43:15 GMT -5
And by the way PF, Mr. Poochkins was looking at the entertaining photo you provided and wondered how you knew that I have my Mother's thighs? -------- ;D |
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Apr 7, 2010 14:59:55 GMT -5
A good lawyer knows the law;
A great lawyer knows the judge.
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 7, 2010 15:13:38 GMT -5
A good lawyer knows the law; A great lawyer knows the judge. What about lawyers knowing a hearing officer or hearing examiner? |
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Apr 7, 2010 15:15:48 GMT -5
carjack is right on. Incredible what a thorough knowledge of the case and a good brief can accomplish. Doesn't take rocket science. Today there was a claimant who went fishing with his friends but they had to cast the line ouf and reel the fish in for him while he watched because he couldn't do it himself! Folks do you realize that you are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with such nonsense?
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Apr 7, 2010 17:22:58 GMT -5
And by the way PF, Mr. Poochkins was looking at the entertaining photo you provided and wondered how you knew that I have my Mother's thighs? -------- ;D I disagree with pf. I thought val's humor, as usual, is impressive and in this case being self-deprecatory, even more so. Gosh knows we disagree on so much... The point about the latest hires is not mine, per se. AALJ's leadership is rather keen on the issue as so many of you know. This is a "dead horse issue" and I have been warned before, thus I will leave it at that. I had naively thought we could talk about what a "happy medium" is--and how this all portends for the Commissioners at other Agencies who want ALJ lateral hires down the road. |
|
|
|
Post by wilddog on Apr 7, 2010 17:37:10 GMT -5
I disagree with pf. I thought val's humor, as usual, is impressive and in this case being self-deprecatory, even more so. Gosh knows we disagree on so much... The point about the latest hires is not mine, per se. AALJ's leadership is rather keen on the issue as so many of you know. This is a "dead horse issue" and I have been warned before, thus I will leave it at that. I had naively thought we could talk about what a "happy medium" is--and how this all portends for the Commissioners at other Agencies who want ALJ lateral hires down the road. ------ No disrespect intended, PA, but given the relatively small numbers of ALJs at other agencies, and the fact that those other agencies can request certs of their own from OPM if they're not happy with the ALJs that SSA has hired, I don't believe the commissioners of those other agencies are going to lose a whole lot of sleep over this question. I do agree with you about Val's sense of humor, though, and always thought a "happy medium" was a ghost whisperer who got paid.  |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Apr 7, 2010 19:25:03 GMT -5
I disagree with pf. I thought val's humor, as usual, is impressive and in this case being self-deprecatory, even more so. Gosh knows we disagree on so much... The point about the latest hires is not mine, per se. AALJ's leadership is rather keen on the issue as so many of you know. This is a "dead horse issue" and I have been warned before, thus I will leave it at that. I had naively thought we could talk about what a "happy medium" is--and how this all portends for the Commissioners at other Agencies who want ALJ lateral hires down the road. ------ No disrespect intended, PA, but given the relatively small numbers of ALJs at other agencies, and the fact that those other agencies can request certs of their own from OPM if they're not happy with the ALJs that SSA has hired, I don't believe the commissioners of those other agencies are going to lose a whole lot of sleep over this question. I do agree with you about Val's sense of humor, though, and always thought a "happy medium" was a ghost whisperer who got paid. Wildog--we go WAY too far back to quibble about disrespect! As I have posted before, small Agencies cannot hire off the Cert for fear of those "who are not vetted." Its a gamble few, if any, Commissioners will take. They are political appointees for the most part, and tend to see the worst case scenario first and second. Its a nice argument and while there are exceptions, (present company included), history has shown and those who scour the USAJobs website know, that you have to be an ALJ to get a job at all those other Agencies. We may not agree with it, but as we used to say in the 'Nam: "there it is." I rather think your argument is short sighted. Ask the AALJ what they think--you only have to pick up the phone--or walk down the hall. The other Agencies are not fighting this--AALJ is, for reasons I can only offer conjecture. |
|
|
|
Post by wilddog on Apr 7, 2010 21:00:03 GMT -5
------ No disrespect intended, PA, but given the relatively small numbers of ALJs at other agencies, and the fact that those other agencies can request certs of their own from OPM if they're not happy with the ALJs that SSA has hired, I don't believe the commissioners of those other agencies are going to lose a whole lot of sleep over this question. I do agree with you about Val's sense of humor, though, and always thought a "happy medium" was a ghost whisperer who got paid. Wildog--we go WAY too far back to quibble about disrespect! As I have posted before, small Agencies cannot hire off the Cert for fear of those "who are not vetted." Its a gamble few, if any, Commissioners will take. They are political appointees for the most part, and tend to see the worst case scenario first and second. Its a nice argument and while there are exceptions, (present company included), history has shown and those who scour the USAJobs website know, that you have to be an ALJ to get a job at all those other Agencies. We may not agree with it, but as we used to say in the 'Nam: "there it is." I rather think your argument is short sighted. Ask the AALJ what they think--you only have to pick up the phone--or walk down the hall. The other Agencies are not fighting this--AALJ is, for reasons I can only offer conjecture. -------- True about the respect - I needn't have added that, since you knew where I was coming from. Now, it may very well be true that other agencies would prefer to draw their ALJs from SSA after that agency has made sure that the judges they want are not complete jerks or folks who are looking for a retirement job . . . after all, this makes Social Security do the heavy lifting in terms of hiring and vetting potential candidates, and what other agency head wouldn't want to cherry-pick already proven candidates? But, it could be said that anyone who's passed OPM's scrutiny can at least potentially do a reasonably good job - all other things being equal - of being an ALJ with virtually any administrative agencies. In that case, if SSA is thought to have failed to hire enough people who could potentially be good adjudicators in other agencies, I would say the ball is back in the court of those other agencies who have other recourse, i.e., requesting their own cert . . . whether or not that's LIKELY to happen, it is a remedy, and if there's anger at SSA and OPM, there should also be anger at the agencies who depend on those two entities as well as the political appointees (like Mr. Astrue at SSA) who head them. I'm somewhat at a loss to explain the AALJ leadership's actions, except that they evidently feel that letting OHA and ODAR staff attorneys become ALJs is akin to peeing in the judicial gene pool, as it were, unfairly painting all such candidates with the same brush. Other union members, however, seem to have realized that there were also staff attorneys who had other adjudicative and/or legal experience in addition to their time with SSA, and that the hiring of such people as judges was not necessarily the first step down the slippery slope of turning the ALJ Corps into the ALJ Corpse. All I can say is that of the SSA ALJs I know personally who have agency backgrounds, virtually all of them would do a creditable job as judges in any other agency as far as I can tell. There is no want of ability nor any want of intelligence or dedication in these people, although certainly some have more experience in litigation or adjudication than others, no doubt. That's also true of the non-agency selectees whom I know as well, by the way. Have there been OHA or ODAR staff attorneys who turned out not to be good judges? I'm sure there have, but by the same token, I've also known some who had a "more respectable" legal pedigree who were lazy, arrogant, rude, and frankly incompetent. But, I know, that's not really the issue at hand. As Forrest Gump would say, "And, that's all I have to say about that."  |
|
|
|
Post by yogibear on Apr 7, 2010 21:06:09 GMT -5
If an Administrative Law JUDGE conducts her/his hearings in compliance with administrative due process requirements established in our Laws and Regulations, addresses each individual claimant with respect and provides each claimant an opportunity for a timely, thorough, impartial and administratively efficient hearing while applying the Laws and Regulations by which the ALJ is bound, THEN he/she has provided a hearing consistent with the requirements of administrative due process and is ENTITLED to be considered an ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.
If the ALJ exercises his/her JUDICIAL discretion with the appropriate humility and awareness of our primary duty to each individual claimant, THEN he/she is ENTITLED to be considered an ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.
Judicial demeanor within an administrative body is about public service. Instead of Rules of Evidence we have the Regulations and Rulings which establish the bounds of our authority and identify our responsibilities to develop the record, "conduct" an effective hearing, make findings of fact, rule on motions and issue a legally defensible and timely decision.
This job is not about the glamor of the title. This job is about public service with honor.
|
|
